Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was seeking a grouping.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lisbon treaty was sold to us on the basis that it would make matters simpler and also more efficient. Why, then, has the European Scrutiny Committee just been told of a supplementary bid for next year's budget of another £22 million to pay for additional European Council events, for the salary entitlements and travel costs of the new President of the Council, for another 50 posts and for more media coverage and medical expenses? Why have-

David Taylor: The EU estimates its costs to the UK at £15 per person a year, while the Europhobic  Daily Express assesses it as £250 per family a year and the TaxPayers Alliance-the Tory party agitators of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)-put it at an astonishing £2,000 per person a year. Which of these figures remotely resembles the truth?

Mark Francois: In December 2005, this Government cut Britain's originally non-negotiable EU rebate by £7 billion in return for a vague promise of a review of the EU budget that has not yet been delivered. Some four years on, can the Minister say when the European Commission's communication setting out proposals for budget reform will formally be published?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of our relationship with Japan, particularly given the election of the new Japanese Government. Since that Government were formed, there have been UK ministerial visits to Japan by the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment and support, by the Minister for Science and Innovation, and by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and skills. The Prime Minister has met the new Japanese Prime Minister on at least one occasion. We very much welcome Japan's bold initiative on climate change, and its recent announcement of a £5 billion assistance package to Afghanistan. We want to continue to deepen and strengthen our relationship with Japan.

Mark Lancaster: Ascension Island faces bankruptcy next June because of the ongoing dispute between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence over just £600,000 of unpaid taxes. The island's school is set to close, and many St. Helenians are set to lose their jobs. Will the Foreign Secretary finally get a grip of this ongoing dispute, bang heads together and sort the issue out?

Crispin Blunt: With reference to the previous answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), does the Foreign Office understand the sense of injustice that is the principal motivating factor behind so much Islamist violence, and that a just settlement of the middle east peace process is an absolutely vital British national interest?

Cheryl Gillan: This year, the House passed a groundbreaking Act on autism, which was the first ever disability-specific legislation and recognised the unique nature and needs of people diagnosed with autism. How can a Government on the one hand legislate to recognise that unique condition, but on the other hand discount the expert medical advice reinforcing the point that, in this case, extradition is wholly inappropriate and potentially lethal to Gary? Quite frankly, is there no logic, justice or humanity left in the Government?

Alan Johnson: I think that they are reasonable actions. As for whether we would be in exactly in the same position if someone had been hacking into the United Kingdom's defences over a 12-month period, with the same effect and at that particular time, and if that person had left the messages that were left at that particular time, I am absolutely sure that Members would be outraged if the United States refused to extradite the person responsible to this country.

Mark Todd: Am I right in thinking that the author of the origins of these proposals is Monsieur de Larosière, who, as we heard yesterday, is apparently the patron saint of Conservative regulatory policy?  [Interruption.] We can see the gestures being made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who presumably feels as uncomfortable on this as I do. Could the Minister throw light on the authorship?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Certainly the original proposals came from Jacques de Larosière in order to replace the Lamfalussy level 3 committees in respect of the European supervisory authorities.  [Interruption.]

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is being a little hasty in reaching any conclusions about a discrepancy in views between myself and my hon. Friends. I have just talked about the timetable, but there are other matters that I want to discuss that are related to the substance of the proposals, on which we have a great deal in common. It is not just about the time scale and process, it is about substance as well.
	I wish to touch on a point that the Exchequer Secretary glossed over, but which has caused a great deal of concern for both the ESC and the Treasury Committee-the constitutional nature of the powers in question. There was a debate in the Treasury Committee about whether the powers to be granted in the proposals before us have a legal basis. In written evidence to the Committee, Stuart Popham and Simon Gleeson of Clifford Chance wrote:
	"The ESAs will not have power to take decisions or to make rules-European law requires that these powers are reserved to the Commission, and we believe that this could not be changed without an amendment to the EU treaty. The attempt to give the committees the power to review the issue of whether individual national regulators have correctly implemented EU legislation appears to be an attempt to stretch this point."
	As we have seen, though, the ESAs will issue binding directions on compliance with EU law and on mediation between two regulators. If the power is to ensure compliance with the law that already exists, it is hard to see of what use it is. Is it a discretionary power or not? As it is presented, it is not clear, and the Commission itself seemed to allude to the same issue in the context of potential interference with the fiscal responsibility of member states when it stated:
	"Incorrect application of Community law cannot be justified by financial grounds. The remainder of the Authorities decisions are either not directed to individual supervisors, or non-binding, therefore by definition cannot have fiscal implications."
	In other words, member states must surely already be compliant with EU law, even on fiscal grounds, so no decision made by the ESAs could have fiscal consequences. Once again, therefore, we must ask what the power is for exactly.
	The confusion does not end there. Mr. Gleeson pointed out in his evidence to the Treasury Committee that if the power was found to be discretionary and was subsequently deployed, the European Court of Justice would be likely to consider any such directives
	"ultra vires to the treaty",
	and they would, as Stuart Popham put it, "cease to exist."

Mark Hoban: I suspect that my hon. Friend is pushing me to go further than I am inclined to go at this point, but I want to explore the legal argument, because there is an issue to do with the basis of the powers. I know that he is an expert on the subject, so he may want to contribute to the debate on that point later.
	Article 95 of the treaty, as currently drafted, will be used to create the ESRB. That article usually deals with matters relating to internal markets, and it operates under qualified majority voting, but if any action arising from the provisions requires treaty amendments, there will not be that capacity, and confusion and paralysis will reign. Article 105 will
	"confer upon the ECB"-
	European Central Bank-
	"specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions with the exception of insurance undertakings",
	but of course it has an exception relating to insurance. Article 105 does not use QMV, and so allows for national vetoes. It is not clear where primacy sits, and what voting mechanism is appropriate.
	There is an alternative basis for the powers in article 308-a residual power that could be used to set up the bodies. However, that requires unanimous decision making. Using that power would make more sense, if it turned out that decisions made by the ESAs were likely to be ultra vires to the European Community treaty if made under article 95. However, I gather that use of the power under article 308 would require amendments to a treaty, which is something that Governments and the European Commission might be reluctant to undertake at the moment. That gives the impression that article 95 is being used to set up the powers more for convenience than because it would give the documents a proper basis.
	Let me turn to the detail. It is important that we tackle the timing and the legality of the arguments. The Minister rather glossed over those points, and in her winding-up speech she should give the House more clarity about the robustness of the arguments on the legal basis on which the new authorities are to be established.
	We want measures to be taken to improve the quality of supervision and co-ordination across Europe, but we do not want that to impinge on the regulatory and fiscal sovereignty of individual member states. As the Chancellor wrote of the new regime, in his letter of response to the de Larosière proposals,
	"it would not supervise individual banks...leaving that to national authorities...given that arrangements for resolving difficulties in these firms remain a national responsibility."
	That is the dilemma that we need to resolve, and that is the principle on which the proposals will be judged in all parts of the House.

Mark Todd: I burdened the House with quite a lengthy speech yesterday and I hope not to detain it quite so long today. There are some linkages, as I indicated in my earlier intervention on the Minister. First, we need to be grateful that Her Majesty's Opposition now regard a French banker as a useful resource for advice for their proposals on regulation, instead of an opportunity for rather stereotypical cursing. We can see some evidence of progress in policy formation there.
	The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) challenged me on the possible payback that Mr. de Larosière might secure from his endorsement of Conservative policy, but we may have seen it in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Instead of questioning the architecture and philosophy of the regulation that came from the relevant group, the focus of his speech was on process and timing. I am certainly going to touch on those things, but I will also address some philosophical concerns about this approach and the direction in which we are heading.

Mark Todd: Let us leave it for the electorate to decide what they make of Conservative policy, its origins and its allies. I certainly listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Fareham. I have to say that Conservative politicians speaking from the Front Bench about Europe always have a somewhat tightrope-like approach, particularly when the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is in his place behind them, trying to prod them in other directions. The speech was an interesting attempt to adhere to a tightrope in spite of provocations from time to time.
	Let me go to the fundamentals of this issue. The previous model of what constituted not European regulation but advisory frameworks in this policy area was focused on what I would regard as the useful purpose of enabling information and practical experience to be exchanged between regulators in the various marketplaces.
	Not everyone feels that talking shops have value. For instance, the Governor of the Bank of England has made a number of entertaining and, one might say, dismissive remarks about de Larosière's thoughts on this area of European intervention. When questioned about the future function of the European systemic risk board, he said:
	"Whether this body turns out to be a mere talking shop or a useful talking shop, in terms of an exchange of views and ideas being generated, remains to be seen-that is up to the people who sit on it. We will see. I go to vast numbers of international meetings and I cannot claim that most of them live up to the billing that one would hope. Nevertheless, as I said, hope springs eternal-cautious, moderate hope for this committee-and we will do our best to try and raise the level of debate."
	There is certainly evidence that some of the international gatherings that are organised to discuss even the more practical issue of regulation may have relatively little value. However, let us take a slightly more optimistic position than that taken by the Governor of the Bank of England, and suggest that these forums for the exchange of information and experience may have some value. What I have puzzled over is the question of what added value results from an extension of that role of information exchange and experience exchange into an activist regulatory framework. That is what the proposals before us represent, not in their fully evolved form-as I shall explain later, I believe that we are moving along a ramp towards a rather higher level of intervention than we see before us now-but certainly in the early stages of establishing a European regulatory framework in the relevant marketplaces.
	I have no principled objection to such an extension as an idea-unlike the hon. Member for Stone, who certainly would-but I should like to see a demonstration of the practical added value that would result from the additional layer of regulatory intervention. I have not seen a case proven which shows that the establishment of some European regulatory framework will cause our consumers to be better protected, our taxpayers to be better protected-from chaos-or the individual trading entities within our nation states to be better protected.

Mark Todd: That is the model for trade negotiations now, and it would certainly be a possible logical outcome of this approach. My constituency does not contain a financial services community-people make things there, and I am glad of that-but financial services constitute an important part of our economy. I respect that position and would wish to defend it, but I do not think that that would be the best means of defending it.
	I am not persuaded that the case has been properly made, but if we accept that the intellectual basis of these changes is a wish to improve market functioning to ensure that we have a single market that works more effectively, and to increase the resilience of that marketplace-in other words, if the aim is the protection of the various entities to which I referred earlier-I am not sure that that will result from the actions we are taking in agreeing to the establishment of these agencies. I would like that case to be set out in practical terms-what does this mean, and how will it deliver added protection and added value in this critically important sector of our economy?
	There is also the issue of deciding both how we are to proceed and how these bodies will operate once they have been decided on and set up. The decision-making process is somewhat strange. I devoted some time to this issue in Treasury Committee discussions. We have by far the largest financial services sector in Europe, yet in the decision-making framework and processes of these bodies-and they will be making decisions-our voice appears to have no greater weight than any other member state. We therefore face some risk of having to spend a significant amount of our time seeking to persuade regulators and their representatives from member states with tiny financial services sectors of the merits of our arguments in horse-trading discussions on technical matters that are largely irrelevant to them, but which they nevertheless have a say in and a vote on. One has to wonder about the merits of that.
	Let me relate an exchange I had on this subject with Lord Myners in the Treasury Committee. I pointed out the rather different degrees of importance of the financial sector for various member states, and he said:
	"I think we would expect our voice and credibility to be reflective of the significance of the financial services industry. Of course it is also worth remembering that we have consistently made the case that European legislation and proposals must be evidence-based and must be the consequence of proper consultation with an impact assessment. We have seen things come out of the Commission which do not meet those criteria".
	I hinted to him that I had heard a suggestion that one of those things was the venture into hedge fund regulation, and he said, "Absolutely." I asked whether that exemplified the problem of constructing European responses in sectors where one nation state has virtually no industry at all and another has a very large industry. He replied:
	"One would expect those nation states which have the greatest economic interest in this area to be the leaders of debate and discussion, as indeed you would over aspects of European policy such as fisheries or agriculture."
	I have spent a considerable chunk of my parliamentary life debating fisheries and agriculture, and I do not find great reassurance in such a reference to the decision-making processes on those matters within Europe. What we have, therefore, is a hope-or an expectation, to refer to the word used by the Minister-that Britain's voice on these matters will be heard loud and clear. I must admit, however, that I would like more than a hope, and even more than an expectation, that we will be able to protect our interests when decisions are made.
	I had expected to hear some of the points I am making from official Opposition Members, but such is their new love-in with Mr. de Larosière that perhaps they have tempered their thinking in this area. We shall see.

Christopher Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), a person who has proved time and again that he understands the issues and is a wise and sage voice in this debate.
	There is no question but that our financial institutions and the City are undergoing a difficult and challenging time, and there is no doubt that reform of our financial system is necessary. We need better and more effective oversight of the financial services sector, a banking system that properly supports small business, and recognition that the current tripartite system needs replacing. However, any changes made must not come at the expense of the City's competitiveness and ability to innovate.
	Last month the World Economic Forum announced that the City of London had overtaken New York as the world's leading financial centre. That is excellent news. The City's long-term success will play a key role in boosting our economy at home and the wider European economy. Given that the Government have given away the vital role of Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services to France, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to a politician who has a reputation for stringent protectionism, can the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the direct implications of this new appointment for the City of London? It is an extremely important point, which I hope the hon. Lady addresses when she winds up the debate shortly. Does she accept that future growth in this country could be undermined as a result? Why was not the Government's priority to ensure that that Commissioner's job came to the UK, for the reasons that I have just described?
	The proposals before us seek to create three European supervisory authorities with rule-making and binding mediation powers: the European banking authority, the European insurance and occupational pensions authority and the European securities and markets authority. The regulations also establish the European systemic risk board, which will allow for macro-prudential oversight of the financial system, but it is worth repeating some of the Treasury Committee's report, which was published earlier this month and has been referred to many times in this debate. It states:
	"There is a great...unease about the detail. There is still more unease about the speed with which it is hoped to agree them... the proposals will set in place a framework which should last for many decades, and there should be proper time for consideration."
	Does the Minister share the concerns of that Committee? If not, will she admit that the Government are placing the need for new systems of international regulation above the need for careful consideration and impact assessment? Does she envisage the proposals being approved by 2 December, which after all is only tomorrow, as the Swedish presidency has called for? I am not clear whether she suggested earlier that things will go through as planned or whether she was sitting on the fence, because she was not quite clear about what will actually happen. She has a valuable opportunity this evening to outline in more detail what she envisages happening at the discussions tomorrow.
	I am sure I do not have to stress that putting forward without proper examination proposals that have far-reaching and serious consequences for the UK's financial sector could genuinely be detrimental to us here in the United Kingdom. I understand that the Government had hoped to secure a rotating chairmanship of the ESRB, but they failed to do so. Will the Minister elaborate on those negotiations? They are crucial to the way in which we consider the proposals before us.
	Are the Government satisfied that the structural arrangements for the ESRB are in Britain's interest? From today's discussions, I am not so sure that there is a great consensus on that in the Chamber, and the Minister owes it to the House to be clear about that. The Treasury Committee's report also highlighted concerns about the size of the board. What is the Minister's assessment of the Committee's comments in that respect? Does she accept that with more than 60 institutions represented, the decision making of the ESRB will be neither effective nor efficient?
	I have concerns about the capacity of the three European supervisory authorities to give binding technical standards to member states and, directly, to institutions in emergency circumstances. I should like to put to the Minister yet again the question that has been posed several times in the debate: can she be more specific about what will qualify as an emergency circumstance? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the powers of national regulators-this is the crucial part-are not undermined? Any decisions that have fiscal implications for the British taxpayer should, without a doubt, remain with national regulators, but it is unclear how that corresponds to the supervisory authority's ability to make binding decisions. I should very much like the Minister to clarify that point to me and to the House this evening.
	Following that, there is a concern that the powers associated with the ESA might run contrary to what is allowed under current EU legislation, so what is being done to resolve those very reasonable concerns? The Minister will be aware that some hedge fund managers and other financial service professionals are moving offshore, to places such as New York and Switzerland, to avoid tighter EU regulations and heavier tax burdens. That has to be worrying news, and the Government must do all they can to ensure that private firms are given the proper incentives to operate in the United Kingdom, albeit ethically and responsibly. That must be taken into account when we consider how we operate from here on in, given what has gone on in the past.
	What is the Minister's response to the news that some private firms are choosing to move out of the UK? That point has not been addressed in the debate, so I hope that she will spend a couple of minutes telling the House her view, because that move has wider implications for the financial centre in the City of London, for the companies dealing in hedge funds and for all the other organisations and companies that serve that industry. That move will have ramifications for employment prospects in the City and beyond as a result. Is she concerned that it will set a precedent, and that further regulation will exacerbate the problem?
	I worry that reform of financial services regulation will harm the UK's financial services sector if it is undertaken without due care and, most importantly, consideration. We must ensure that our economic interests are fully protected and, importantly, upheld, but Ministers have been too slow to defend in Brussels the interests of the City. That was demonstrated neatly by the recent internal markets commissionership, as I have already described. I wait to see how the Government approach the redrafted directive on alternative investment fund managers, and I call on Ministers to ensure that any proposals enhance the UK's financial industry, rather than damaging it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks described.
	As I stated as the start of my speech, the City is the world's financial centre and the UK Government should lead and drive the debate about regulatory reform. So far, all the evidence points towards Ministers taking the back seat. That is the wrong way to go forward in the best interests of our nation and our standing on the world stage.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank all hon. Members for their participation in this debate. There has been a theme, in that the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), and others, said that they did not believe that the Government were engaged. I disagree and assure them that the Government have been, and continue to be, heavily engaged at official and ministerial levels. Indeed, over the past months UK officials have consulted on and discussed the key legislative proposals with numerous member states. Those meetings have informed others of our positions and enabled us better to understand our European partners' views. We have strong working relationships and regular dialogue throughout the EU.
	On hedge funds, the alternative investment fund managers directive, which has been mentioned, is a key example of a situation in which the Commission's initial legislative proposal was unacceptable. As a result of significant work by officials and Ministers, however, we have seen considerable improvements to it, and my noble Friend Lord Myners has personally committed a substantial part of his time to achieving a good outcome for the UK on EU directives. He has had useful discussions with many EU stakeholders, including Members of the European Parliament, the Swedish presidency and the incoming Spanish presidency.
	Many hon. Members spoke about the timetable, and we were very clear that national Parliaments needed time to scrutinise the proposals. The Chancellor's view at the October ECOFIN meeting was that October was far too early to sign up to a general approach, but we always said that we would aim for agreement on the complete package by December, and that was included in the explanatory memorandum.
	The timeline was set out at the June European Council. We hope that tomorrow, ECOFIN will agree on the general approach, which will then become the Council negotiating position through the European Parliament. The European Parliament, through its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, will agree its negotiating position; the Council presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament will identify, if necessary, a compromise position; changes will be approved, or otherwise, by ECOFIN in the spring; and the European Parliament will vote on the agreement. That is the timetable.
	The hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for South-West Norfolk, and many others, spoke about last week's Commission appointments. I think that those decisions, and those taken by the European Council, are good for Britain, good for Europe and good for Britain in Europe. We have, in Baroness Ashton and her appointment as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, someone who gives Britain a powerful voice in the Commission and the Council, and she is the only commissioner to have a key role in the Council, too. As vice-president of the Commission, she will have a central and important role in driving progress across the full range of issues. She will be able to speak up on and have influence over all the issues, including those that matter most to the British public-economic recovery, security and tackling climate change.
	On the appointment of Monsieur Barnier, it seems strange that some Frenchmen are wonderful and some are not. People are happy to quote Monsieur de Larosière but not so happy with Monsieur Barnier. I hope that hon. Members will note what he said in an interview on the radio yesterday:
	"I know the importance of the City. I know the importance of this major financial centre for growth in Britain and the economy of Europe as a whole."
	Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the policy and resources committee of the City of London Corporation, has said:
	"I have every confidence that, together, we can forge a constructive working relationship."
	We believe that in his hearings before the European Parliament, Monsieur Barnier will demonstrate his commitment to valuing and promoting the interests of the City of London as Europe's principal financial centre.
	In addition, Britain will have a number of senior official posts in the new Commission. Monsieur Barnier has asked the President of the Commission, in the course of the next rotation of director general appointments, to appoint an official he knows well and has worked with before-Jonathan Faull. President Barroso has said that he intends to appoint a senior British official to lead work on economic and financial issues in his cabinet. We understand from Monsieur Barnier that there will be a senior Briton in his cabinet dealing with financial services, and that he will want someone who is known to the City.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of fisheries.
	I am pleased to begin this debate. It seems amazing that a year has flown by since the last annual fisheries debate, although we have had many occasions in the intervening period to debate marine and fisheries matters. Although the year has flown by, in the past 40 minutes or so I wondered whether we would get to this debate, but I am pleased that we are here now.
	This is the second fisheries debate in which I have spoken. It gives me the opportunity to report progress in the past year, which has been quite a significant year. Common fisheries policy reform is well under way, with the Government leading from the front, and we have worked on IUU-illegal, unreported and unregulated-fisheries and international governance. We also got the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 on to the statute book last month. We are the first country in the world to have a single piece of legislation to protect and manage our seas. This debate is also timely, as it always is, in that it allows me to hear the views of the House before the December European Fisheries Council and to look forward to next year.
	However, at the outset I would like to pay tribute-as we always do, and quite rightly-to our fishermen, who face dangers at sea every day, every month and every year to catch the fish that so many of us enjoy eating. I am very sad to report to the House that over the past year 12 fishermen have lost their lives. I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the families and friends who suffered those tragic losses.
	Let me begin with the meat of the debate by giving the usual update on the fishing sector's contribution to the economy. As hon. Members will know, the industry has faced catch restrictions to protect fish stocks. Since 2007, UK landings of fish have declined by 4 per cent., with falling catches of mackerel and herring. However, landings of shellfish have increased by 3 per cent. The total value of landings of fish from UK vessels in 2008 was £629 million, a decrease of 2 per cent. from 2007. Although the value of demersal fish was largely the same, prices for shellfish landings showed slight decreases, particularly, as hon. Members in the areas concerned will know, those for nephrops, a key shellfish species for the UK fleet.
	Exports of fish and fish products had a value of just over £1 billion in 2008, an increase of 3 per cent. since 2007. The industry-a huge employer in this country, along with its associated ancillary industries-provided employment for 12,761 fishermen in 2008. As we all know, the industry also contributes to the local economies and the culture of coastal communities, which is especially important in these times of economic difficulty. It would be remiss of me not to mention also the contribution of sea angling, which is popular in our island nation and makes a significant contribution to the UK economy.
	Over the past year we have been working on many fronts towards a single goal of achieving sustainable fisheries. That has been very much in the news, as hon. Members will know, with the film "The End of the Line" arousing great interest among the press and public alike and causing much debate. Sustainable fisheries are hugely important for our food security. Across Europe, two thirds of the fish that we eat and up to 90 per cent. of white fish are caught outside EU waters. Over-exploitation, illegal fishing and conflicting demands on the marine environment all impact on fisheries' contribution to our food security. That is why we need to look at what we do not only in the domestic arena and the EU, but internationally.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed I can. It is a live issue, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. In fact, I met fishermen this morning and discussed that very issue, among others. Officials and I were in touch with fisheries leaders throughout the weekend, and we continue to be so. It is unfortunate that this year's discussions between the EU and Norway and other non-EU states is more difficult than normal, for reasons that I suspect the hon. Gentleman is aware of, albeit for the right reasons as well. Where we need to take enforcement action on fishing vessels within and outside the EU, it is right that we should do so, but that aspect has perhaps coloured this year's discussions.
	We are actively engaged in those discussions. We want to see a positive outcome, but we remain in live discussion with industry leaders and skippers as they go forward. I pay tribute not only to those stakeholders and the industry, which are engaged in that process as we speak, but to officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, who are also out there fighting the good fight. However, it is difficult this year.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman raises another aspect of co-decision that I have touched on-trying to find a way, and we think there are ways, of devolving real responsibility where the buck stops. The buck does not stop only in terms of fisheries management, because it stops with fisheries and marine management, involving those people who I have consistently argued will be the best for long-term management of that marine environment, namely fishermen themselves. I think that there is a real appetite for this.
	We recently had a two-day session at the Inter-RAC conference, when the regional advisory councils were brought together in Edinburgh a month ago, and there was almost unanimity on this issue. That meeting, and others, have been attended by officials from the Commission as well, who have spoken about the legal difficulties but with some optimism that it could be done. It is now down to us, with the support of the industry and people with ideas and models, to advance those ideas rapidly. That is what we are set on doing.
	One issue I am concerned about, as I said last year, is that of small coastal communities around the UK. I understand the value of fishing to these small, often remote, coastal communities: it is more than simply fisheries and the economy; it is their way of life, their livelihood and also a huge issue for their cultural heritage. It is also part of the UK's heritage as an entity. We need to find ways of supporting vulnerable communities that depend on fishing.
	One of my priorities this last year, in difficult times, has been putting the inshore fleet on to a more sustainable footing, which has not been without difficulty. We have decommissioned 65 vessels. On the back of that decommissioning, which was linked to licence capping-not without controversy-we have directly released quota back into the under-10 metre pool. We introduced the licence capping scheme to keep fishing for quota stocks at current levels.
	We have also set up the SAIF-sustainable access to inshore fisheries-project through close working between DEFRA and stakeholders in fisheries management, the fishing industry and fishing communities. This is not driven purely by fishermen themselves; our argument with SAIF was always on the basis that the issue of fisheries needs to be integrated into regional development, better marketing and extending the line of production so that it is not simply a matter of extracting the raw materials but receiving the end-benefit as well. All that is relevant to the SAIF project. There is an advisory group, which has done some excellent work, bringing together expertise from the fishing industry and beyond to help to drive this work forward.
	We are also using the European Fisheries Fund to help our fishing industry to secure a sustainable and profitable future. In 2009, we have offered grants totalling £43 million across the UK for projects ranging from major harbour improvements in North Shields and extra safety gear above the legal requirements for individual boats to Marine Stewardship Council accreditation.
	One pan-UK project that I know Members will be interested to hear about is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution man overboard safety system, which enables the RNLI to track vessels and alert their monitoring system if there are difficulties. That could be crucial and I remind hon. Members that I opened the debate with the issue of lives lost at sea. This sort of innovation is something that could really help in the future. The system also includes personal safety devices that alert the skipper if a crew member goes overboard. The system has already saved lives at sea and we hope that on the back of that investment, as many as 1,500 units will be in use by the end of 2011.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to cut my remaining remarks short. However, I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) about the sustainability of communities and the fleets that are part of those communities, because it is relevant to a vital part of the debate.
	As we implement common fisheries policy reform, we need to engage in a frank discussion throughout the devolved areas about how we can deliver a prosperous future-let us scrap the word "sustainable" for the moment-for widely variegated coastal communities that have different types of vessels and experience different aspects or isolation and remoteness. I think that part of the solution is not protectionism per se, but the willingness of Ministers to stand up and say how vessels and fisheries can be made more profitable, how they can produce better harvests, and how fishermen can own production from the point at which the fish are landed to the point of marketing.
	I have used this analogy before, and I am sorry that it comes from my own back yard, but we should bear in mind what has been achieved in the marketing of Welsh lamb. Ten years ago, Welsh lamb producers were producing only cheap carcases from the top of the Welsh hills. Now they represent one of our biggest success stories. They have taken command of the line of supply all the way to the supermarket in a co-operative manner, and have added value. Some of the fisheries in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and others are high-quality mixed fisheries which should not be selling at bog-standard prices-not that there is such a thing-to whoever comes in. There should be a much cleverer way of owning the profits resulting from that supply chain.
	As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many other Members wish to speak. Let me do what I said I would do, and deal with some of the other aspects rapidly. I mentioned illegal fishing earlier. I am pleased to say that we have taken a leading role on that, and are making good progress. A European Union regulation that will come into force next month introduces new rules on imports and exports of fish and fish products to and from the EU, making it more difficult for illegally caught fish to enter the EU from non-EU countries. We have been working closely not just with importers and exporters but with nations that will be affected, including developing countries. We are trying to work with those countries to encourage them to engage in better governance and to tackle illegal and unregulated fisheries so that they can take advantage of entry to the European market.
	The UK is also leading the way in protecting commercially fished species. Action is needed urgently if bluefin tuna is to be commercially sustainable. We have publicly supported Monaco's proposal to give this species the highest protection possible under the convention on international trade in endangered species. As a result of the international pressure, and with the strong support of the United Kingdom, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas demonstrated at its annual meeting its willingness to take tougher measures to protect bluefin tuna. However, we shall keep a close watch on whether the measures are implemented quickly enough to conserve this iconic species.
	We have been working hard to protect sharks, skates and rays, which are in serious decline. We ensured that the Council's conclusions on the European Commission's shark plan of action, agreed in April, were strong, clear and robust. We are proceeding with work under this plan of action ourselves, funding scientific research that will help us to protect and manage those threatened stocks. The UK has made a bold decision to increase the protection offered to sharks by banning the removal of shark fins at sea by UK-registered fishing vessels. Any sharks caught by UK vessels will now have to be landed with their fins attached to their bodies, so there is now no risk of wasteful shark finning.
	The UK is also dealing with the incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries operations. Every year many seabirds die unnecessarily, and that is seriously affecting some seabird populations. Internationally, we are working through the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and we are putting pressure on regional fisheries management organisations to reduce by-catch. We are playing a leading role in championing seabird protection in Europe by challenging the European Commission at the November Council meeting to introduce an EU seabird plan of action.
	A major theme of our work is integrating fishing with other marine activities. I have mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, with which Members will be very familiar; I thank them for their support in putting it on the statute book. It establishes a new system of marine planning. Along with the devolved Administrations, we have published high-level marine objectives to which we have all agreed, and which will feed into the marine policy statement that we are developing to guide the marine planning process under the Act. For the first time, we will be planning all the activities in the our seas in a properly integrated way.
	The Act introduces better licensing for marine developments, and the conservation of marine biodiversity through marine conservation zones. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee have set up four regional projects, which are doing extremely well. The conservation zones will help us to deliver our commitments under the European Commission's marine strategy framework directive, which requires us to achieve "good environmental status" for our seas by 2020.
	The Act also creates the Marine Management Organisation, which will be the Government's delivery body in English waters and UK offshore waters. I have appointed the chairman-designate, and staff from the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which is being subsumed into the Marine Management Organisation, are already moving to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in preparation for the vesting of the organisation in April. In order to put this to rest, I want to put it clearly on the record that, contrary to speculation in the regional press, we have measures in place to ensure that levels of service are maintained during the transition. The MFA is currently recruiting new members of staff for its headquarters, to replace those who are not relocating. The first two groups of new recruits have already completed training in London and are now working in Newcastle. More new staff will begin work over the coming months, complementing the experienced staff in the 18 offices-which we often forget about-all around the UK coast. So it will be business as usual.
	At the local level, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will ensure that we have an integrated approach to our marine resources. They will replace sea fisheries committees, and they will modernise inshore fisheries management in England. They must seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of their districts with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation. They will draw on local knowledge to solve local problems through local decision making. Following consultation, I have decided that there will be 10 inshore fisheries and conservation districts. Last month, we brought together members and staff of the sea fisheries committees to discuss how the new authorities can best respond to their new duties, using the achievements of the sea fisheries committees as their springboard.
	Having sprinted through my speech in order to leave time for other contributions, I hope Members will agree that over the last year we have made significant progress towards achieving sustainable fisheries and integrating fishing with other marine activities. We have moved forward in protecting our marine environment, and progress on common fisheries policy reform and other initiatives are good news for fish stocks and fishermen. Although there will be difficult choices in the coming year, we have firm foundations on which to build. I look forward to hearing the views of Members.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear to me from my visits around coastal Britain that we can learn a lot from other countries, where activities such as recreational angling, which I am sure we will hear a lot about in this debate, are integrated much more with tourism. In Ireland, for example, on the approach roads to coastal ports there are signs advertising not only hotels but boat hire, tackle shops and so forth. The industry there is much more integrated. This also has an impact on the fishing industry, in which so many people are involved. We can learn a lot, and we can do a lot to try to make these industries more integrated.
	This year more than ever we are debating fisheries during uncertain times for the UK fishing industry. At present, the UK pelagic fleet is facing uncertainty as international negotiations over mackerel with the EU, Norway and the Faeroes continue to drag on, while the white fish sector continues to be squeezed by reduced quotas and days at sea. Moreover, the implementation of marine conservation zones, and the formation of the Marine Management Organisation and the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, is under way.
	Before I continue, I would like to take this opportunity to join the Minister in paying tribute to our fishermen, who do a very dangerous and increasingly difficult job catching the fish that end up on our plates. In the last 12 years, 120 UK fishermen have died at sea-51 in the under-10 metre sector and 69 in the over-10 metre fleets. Fishing remains one of the most dangerous jobs, and while we talk on a political level in this debate, it is important that we remember that the realities at sea affect not only livelihoods and communities, but the lives of thousands of people. I am also indebted to many fishermen and others in coastal communities for the time they spent with me as I travelled around coastal Britain seeking solutions from those who live and breathe the issues we are discussing. I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who did a lot when holding the post I now occupy. He is a hard act to follow.
	The most recent figures show that there are some 12,761 fishermen in the UK. About 80 per cent. of them are regular and the remainder are part-time. The total number of fishermen is down by a third since 1997, with the catching industry in the UK landing about £645 million-worth of catches, which can result in £800 million to £1.2 billion-worth of economic activity. Behind every fisherman and vessel there is a fishing community, with about five onshore jobs-down from 10-for every fisherman. While much of today's debate will relate to fishermen, we must remember the shore-based jobs as well.
	In the past, this annual debate has been limited in scope. We should remind ourselves that the health of our seas is a national concern. I think many of us who were involved in the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 were taken aback by the amount of organisations and ordinary people who lobbied us on that Bill. The Co-op's customer polling showed that a vast number of people across the land-not just in coastal Britain-are now taking an active interest in the health of our seas. If we add the 1.3 million sea anglers, we realise how important a national issue this is.
	Consumers have a key role to play in the future of our fisheries. Through the choices they make in supermarkets, they can support innovative schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation scheme, which has genuine potential to help achieve a sustainable future for our fisheries.
	UK household consumption of fish continues to increase. The amount of money spent on fish by consumers jumped from £1.96 billion to £2.57 billion between 1996 and 2005, so this issue has an impact on our food security as well as our economic security. However, while the consumer demand for fish rises, it is no secret that the UK's fisheries are struggling. Dwindling fish stocks and a patchy understanding of the overall state of stocks, overcapacity, wasteful discarding, mismanagement of quota, top-down micro-management, and a common fisheries policy that even Commissioner Joe Borg has described as
	"inefficient, expensive and too complex"
	have all served to deepen the woes of UK fisheries and the industry they support.
	Of course, when debating the future of our fisheries, we cannot simply look at the industry. A more holistic approach must be adopted that takes into account the fact that fisheries play a vital environmental, as well as recreational, role, with UK waters housing 50 per cent. of total UK biodiversity, and recreational sea anglers contributing £538 million to the economy and supporting 19,000 jobs.

Andrew George: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell): we need protected time in which to undertake this debate in future, so that we do not lose time because of other business. Many hon. Members wish to take part, and I shall do my utmost to make my remarks as quickly as possible so that we allow as many hon. Members to speak as we can.
	We use this debate as an opportunity both to demonstrate our appreciation of those in the industry, especially the catching sector, who are engaged in the most hazardous profession, and to convey our sympathies to the families and colleagues of those men who engage in this important industry to put fish on our tables and who are lost at sea.
	I pay tribute to the Minister and agree with about 90 per cent. of what he said. I shall try to concentrate on the areas where we disagree, rather than on those where we agree. In that respect, I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), because, having heard a decade of fantasy from the Conservatives, I think it useful and helpful to hear that the party has turned around and is now engaged in constructive dialogue about the future of the fishing industry in relation to its international objectives with the rest of Europe.
	The negotiations are very difficult. The Minister will be aware that the main, very important fishing port of Newlyn in my constituency, which I hope he will visit soon, had a troubled year. It is now, however, looking positively to the future. However, many challenges affect my constituency and others. They include the challenges from the change to the regulation on under-10 metre vessels. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will mention recreational sea anglers and the regulations affecting them. In an intervention on the Minister, I also mentioned that two of the five special areas of conservation-the special protection areas-are within my constituency. Their likely impact should be a good opportunity for the Government and Natural England to show that, in fact, conservation and a sustainable fishing industry can work together. We will watch that one closely. Further challenges include the roll-out of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the implementation of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and I congratulate the Minister on his decision to retain the integrity of the current boundaries of the sea fisheries committees.
	I shall emphasise a theme in my contribution. On the future of this industry, we do not envisage the "them and us" culture of the past, with the fishing industry working against those enforcing the regulations and the scientists, or vice versa. Instead, we envisage everyone working together, with the shared objectives of a sustainable industry-scientists and regulators working with the industry, and the industry often leading the debate on constructive proposals for its future.
	I want to deal with the annual Fisheries Council, common fisheries policy reform, and the Green Paper, and to look at constructive ways forward. The Minister will be aware, as he has been through this already, that we will no doubt again have the absurdity of the 11th-hour brinkmanship of overnight negotiations as the fishing nations come together to resolve the remaining issues of debate and disagreement. I wish him well in those discussions. Of course, we agree that decisions should be based on sound science, but what do we do if the science is not there or if there has been insufficient recent scientific assessment? That has bedevilled much of our debate in years gone by. Throughout area 7, many of the scientific assessments are based on last year's, not this year's, assessments. What are we to do in those circumstances? I hope that the Minister will say that he is working towards remedying that situation early in 2010. Scientists, the industry, DEFRA, the regional advisory councils and the European Commission need to work together to address it.
	Another theme that runs through those negotiations, which possibly affects areas 6 and 7 more than others, is the "use or lose it" method, which results in perverse outcomes-for example, the Cornish fishermen lose out if the French do not catch their quota. If quotas are not rolled over, there is also the perverse incentive whereby fishermen are encouraged to catch rather than to preserve their stock. I hope that the Minister will take that into account in his negotiations in the Fisheries Council.
	The practice of quota swapping increasingly happens between nations. As a result of the establishment of the RACs, Cornish fishermen are working well with French fishermen, and that is happening elsewhere, too. Surely that is a beneficial outcome. It is better to develop international relations by joint working within the RACs. I understand that that is not yet sanctioned or supported by the Minister and his Department, so I hope that he will take that point on board.
	The Minister mentioned the need to preserve spurdogs, porbeagle sharks, skates and rays. Those are non-target species, and rightly so, but they are an unavoidable by-catch in many of the sectors that we are talking about. I hope that he will work with the industry to try to ensure that we reduce that by-catch, as the measures proposed in the settlement for the Fisheries Council will not save a single spurdog, porbeagle shark, skate or ray. He has received a letter from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, dated 27 November, which contains some significant proposals that I hope he will take into account.
	I think that we are all reading from the same page in the debate on common fisheries policy reform. We want it to be more devolved on the basis of better science, better monitoring and better, more even enforcement across Europe, with more buy-in, based on a constructive dialogue, from an industry incentivised to promote long-term objectives and sustainability. However, the remaining issue, which we often come back to, is the role of total allowable catches and quotas in the future of the CFP. I think we can also all agree, as we have tended to do so in all the debates that I have engaged in, that quotas are a blunt instrument. They create the obscenity of discarding fish, they create a barrier to new entrants, they are almost useless in protecting stock in mixed fisheries, particularly ultra-mixed fisheries such as those in my area, and they are perceived as often being based on arbitrary assessments and threadbare evidence.
	There are many other criticisms of TACs and quotas. However, the problem is that as soon as one starts to think of getting rid of them, the industry says that the problem is that the most highly valued stock-in my area, Dover sole and turbot, for example-would be the first to be plundered and would therefore slip down the value chain. Moreover, that approach would hit the areas that are as close as possible to port, particularly when fuel prices are high. It would not work. I have noticed that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is very clear about wanting a system strongly based on quotas.
	The problem with discards is how to distinguish between intended and unintended over-quota by-catches. That has been a conundrum for the regulators and will continue to be. If we got rid of quotas altogether, those who had invested properly would not be properly rewarded for it in future quotas and licences.
	The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the NFFO's proposed sustainable fishing plans, which are clearly the way forward. It has stated that a future CFP should be:
	"The catching and gathering of marine resources for the benefit of humankind in ways that do not prejudice future generations".
	I would add that that should probably include their appreciation of a healthy and diverse marine environment. The culture has changed for the better over the past decade, and there is a strong and constructive dialogue. The industry is working constructively with marine scientists, and there are two good examples of that. The first is the Cornish Trevose ground closure, which has now been in operation for four years. It was designed for cod recovery, and anecdotally it is working. We have not yet had a review of the impact that it is having, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is one. Has it displaced effort elsewhere, and what contribution has it made to the spawning stock biomass, sustainable yields and the recovery of cod and other species? Knowing that would be particularly helpful.
	The second example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is an excellent initiative largely driven by the industry in Scotland-the Scottish conservation credits scheme, which was introduced last February. They are Celts, but they are rather laggardly Celts, because they are slightly behind the Cornish, but never mind. We will forgive them for that-at least they are ahead of the Anglo-Saxons. The scheme is based on voluntarily closed areas, changes in gear, the management of effort and the maintenance of days at sea.
	The industry has come up not only with those two excellent initiatives, which are already working, but with something of which I hope the Minister will take account-the sustainable fishing plans. The hon. Member for Newbury has already described them, so I do not need to. I hope that the Minister will take into account what hon. Members have said and ensure that the plans become the basis on which we can build an agenda for the future in which the industry is keyed in and working constructively with scientists, marine conservationists and law enforcers. There must be greater teamwork, with all of us working together, rather than the "them and us" culture of the past.

Bill Wiggin: I begin by praising the work of the Angling Trust, whose headquarters are in Leominster, in my constituency. I am very proud that it has chosen to base itself there. Herefordshire has the famous River Wye, the finest salmon river in England. The Angling Trust came into effect in January 2009-the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and I were there-and it has provided a unified voice for angling needs, which is a tremendous asset. Some 4 million anglers contribute £1 billion to the economy and support more than 20,000 jobs. The trust has done a good job of keeping the interests of angling to the fore in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that it is essential that angling interests are properly represented on inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and are not just lumped in with other interests. They need a proper voice.
	Angling is a great inclusive sport. I would also like to pay tribute to the organisations that support disabled angling, particularly the British Disabled Angling Association. Unfortunately, last year the Government hit disabled anglers with a one-third increase in their fishing licence fees, and 140,000 senior and disabled anglers are now paying more for their concessionary rates.
	In a written answer to me, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), then a DEFRA Minister, confirmed in April 2008 that there would be another review of the concessionary rates for the licence fee in 2010. I hope that this Minister will ensure that that review takes place and that angling groups and disabled anglers, in particular, are fully included in that review and that the concessionary rates do not remain as they are but go down so that more disabled anglers find it easier to go fishing.
	Article 47 of the related EU Commission regulation is the other serious concern against which anglers have been battling. It would take the amount of fish caught by anglers and put it in with national quotas. As for the progress that has been made, it is a case of so far, so good. I tabled early-day motion 528 on this matter last year and I think that the European Economic and Social Committee has highlighted the impact on the commercial sector and amended the wording. However, although I welcome the progress, we have to be careful. Some of the terms in the existing wording allow the Council to introduce "specific management measures", including catching declarations and fishing authorisations, where it is thought that a recreational fishery is having a "significant impact." The danger may have abated, but it has not gone away. I hope that the Minister will keep the House updated on such proposals and ensure that we veto them if the opportunity arises in Council.
	The Minister mentioned the bluefin tuna. It is a tragedy that, even though that species is one of the most endangered in the world, members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas-ICCAT-voted in November to allow 13,500 tonnes of bluefin tuna to be caught next year. That fish will be extinct in two years' time; it cannot be fished at that level, and it is a real mistake to allow it. More needs to be done to prevent illegal tuna fishing and we certainly should not be considering having such big quotas.
	On whaling, I must encourage the Government to take a very robust approach. Just recently, we saw the Japanese make significant progress: they actually managed to win a vote. When that happened, I checked to see what the Government had done to encourage other countries to join the moratorium on whaling. Very little had been done and so I take this opportunity to say to the Minister that he must not take his eye off the ball-we are all agreed that whaling cannot be allowed to be brought back.
	We must ensure that effort goes into bringing on board countries that are not members of the International Whaling Commission. When the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was the relevant Minister, he gave me a written answer that said that, of the 57 countries to which the Government sent their documents, only 15 were non-IWC members. Seven of those have still not joined: Bosnia, Latvia, Malta, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey. I hope that the Minister will ensure that pressure is put on those countries to join the IWC and to ensure that whaling is not brought back.
	On the Marine and Coastal Access Act, I think we all welcome the progress that has been made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on the excellent job that he did in a very consensual and positive way. He made sure that the Bill was as good as it could possibly be, and I congratulate him on that. One thing is still of critical importance-that other countries respect our efforts to preserve the marine environment. At the moment, they do not have to do so, which is why within six miles of our shore foreign fishermen can be obeying a completely different set of rules to those observed by British fishermen. We saw that with bass pair trawling-a way of fishing that is especially damaging to dolphins and that goes on just out of range. I urge the Government to do everything they can to ensure that the six and 12-mile limits are respected and that other European countries obey the same rules as British fishermen.
	I know that the Minister will be discussing fish stocks in December, and he will know that 88 per cent. of fish stocks in Europe are over-fished, compared to a global average of 25 per cent. Some 30 per cent. of stocks are outside safe biological limits and 14 of the 47 fin fish stocks of importance to UK fishermen are now fished outside those limits. Only eight fin fish stocks are within those limits. If the Minister can do just one thing in his term of office it should be to ensure that those fish stocks are preserved. Everyone agrees that discards are wrong, but until we start to measure what is caught, we will not have the scientific evidence that we need to enforce proper discard bans. The hon. Member who mentioned what his fishermen were doing with larger mesh sizes was right, but at the moment there is no incentive for fishermen to be more selective in their gear-they do it out of the goodness of their hearts-and we need to ensure that, if at all possible, we reward best behaviour. At the moment, that is not happening and we need to do far more.
	Equally, we need to look at how the Government are allocating quota to the under-10-metre fleet. I understand that The Hague convention allocation went to the over-10-metre fleet-

Eddie McGrady: At this time of year, the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces the Christmas season with dread and almost despair because of the growing inability to earn a living at sea. I do not intend to address the broader issues, because they have been, and will be, so eloquently addressed by other hon. Members. I will discuss the more parochial aspects of the issue that I would like the Minister to consider.
	I endorse the praise for the Minister that has come from both sides of the House tonight for his administration of this difficult industry. However, I shall unfortunately strike a discordant note. The House may be aware that the operation of the Hague preferences is particularly important to the island of Ireland, both north and south, but there is a feeling among the fishermen of Northern Ireland that they are now making an undue proportion of the contribution under the Hague preferences. Until last year, the buy-back or swap of the losses was compensated for by the UK as a whole, but it appears to Northern Ireland fishermen that this year they were the primary contributor to the swapping process.
	In an effort to gauge accurately the scale of the swaps, fishermen asked DEFRA to give a summary of the Hague preference losses for the Irish sea since 2000. They were advised that the information could not be released because although the December negotiation teams had the information, they could not divert resources to release it. I find that a rather weak reason these days, when we have the technical ability to transfer data almost immediately. I must say, however, that I am disappointed because, in preparing for that point, I wrote to the Minister on 6 November, but as yet I have not even received an acknowledgement.
	I shall move on, however, to the more important issue of the yearly quota cuts, including the one that will no doubt come from Brussels this month. The Minister referred to the importance in certain fishing communities of this vital industry-on both sea and land-to their economic welfare. That could not be better exemplified or illustrated than in my constituency of South Down, where two thirds of the fishing effort is concentrated; the remaining third is in the neighbouring Antrim constituency. In my constituency, and in one port in the Strangford constituency, the industry employs 1,200 people, contributing nearly £100 million to the economy. That would be severely affected by a further decline owing to the small-industry wipe-out that has taken place in constituencies such as mine and the complete collapse of the construction industry.
	The largest sector in the Northern Ireland fishing industry is the prawn and nephrop sector-some 90 per cent. of the fishing fleet fishes for nephrops. That is the direct result of the yearly purges of the cod quota, resulting in an overall cut in the quota to date of 84 per cent. Only six boats in Northern Ireland still fish for cod.
	That dynamic change, however, has not been particularly recognised by Europe, whose main proposal this year is to cut the nephrop and prawn sector by a further 30 per cent. If I remember rightly, last year, a more modest proposal for a 2 per cent. cut came out of the negotiations, but even that cost the economy in small communities in Northern Ireland £2 million. We could extrapolate a 2 per cent. cut from a 30 per cent. cut, but we still do not know what might happen. If the proposal is taken forward, at that rate of cut, several fish processing factories and more than 200 jobs will be lost immediately.
	On the prawn quota, the scientific evidence gathered by the Agri-Food and Bio Sciences Institute is positive, and shows that prawns in the Irish sea are fished sustainably and that stocks are on an upward trend. Yet we have this proposal from Brussels for yet another massive cut. Like the Northern Ireland regional agriculture and fisheries Minister, I would like the Minister to confirm whether the area 7 prawn quota will be the No. 1 priority in the negotiations.

Angus MacNeil: It is that time of year again when the CFP gets its usual bad name. No one in Westminster seems to have a good word for it, but because of the great deities hanging around our necks, it is not, unfortunately, challenged seriously by any of the current big parties in the House, so fishing priorities are diluted. From the perspective of Scottish desires, the priorities are diluted in the British Union. The UK's desires are further diluted in the European Union, but that is the CFP for us. I could go on for far longer, but I notice that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), my ally on this issue, is not in his place, so perhaps I will spare the House, as hon. Members might not have the stomach for it.
	We are where we are. What message I want to leave ringing in the Minister's ears before he goes to Europe? I have a shopping list of things, and I am sure he will be taking notes on them or reading about them tomorrow. First, as has been mentioned, he should protect the mackerel, Scotland's second most important quota after langoustines or nephrops-call them what we will. I hope that the Government at Westminster will not blink on the issue. We hold the cards on mackerel. We should keep those cards and not trade mackerel away for any other species.
	In the wider fishery, Scots fishermen in particular have led the way on conservation issues, as has been mentioned. That should be recognised and rewarded, not subject to the penalisation that so often characterises the common fisheries policy. On the wider philosophy of fishing, a mixed fishery with quotas is just not working. For instance, the Faroese are using an effort-based approach. They seem to be far more successful and are much happier with what is happening with their fishery-they are also outside the common fisheries policy, of course. One of the issues with quotas is that scientists emphasise the lowest stock in a mixed fishery, which leads to a perverse approach to the management of that fishery.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister knows the difficulty with that issue; I can see him nodding.
	Given the time available, I will now raise the issues that are pressing in my area of Na h-Eileanan an Iar-a constituency that I am sure the Minister looks forward to pronouncing at the end of the debate-on the west coast of Scotland. If I can translate from Gaelic, the main point made earlier today by Duncan McInnes of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association is that the squid and crayfish that are currently caught as part of cod recovery should be excluded, as the cod by-catch in the fishery is effectively zero. I hope the Minister will look at that issue. Prawn fisheries in which the cod caught accounts for less than 1.5 per cent. should also be excluded, and those concerned should be given 200 days at sea and the ability to land the by-catch.
	The Minister may need to know that although west coast prawn numbers are currently low, they were also low in 1981, yet 1982 and 1983 were almost record years. Prawn numbers are cyclical. The difficulty with the science is that it often takes snapshots, reporting things as they are and attributing them to whatever reasons or causes come to mind. We really do not know the reasons and causes, but we can learn from history about what happened in the prawn fishery before and see that the years after were successful years.
	With a 30 per cent. by-catch of cod, haddock and whiting in some prawn fisheries, fishermen's leaders feel that the haddock should be removed from that category, because stocks of haddock are so good. The haddock fishery is in a very healthy position. John Hermse of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association echoed that point. He would like some help to be given to the prawn fishery, which is experiencing some difficulty, with a 15 per cent. increase in megrim and a 30 per cent. increase in monkfish, to help make the fishery pay for those fishermen. This issue is highlighted in an e-mail I was sent earlier today from the fishing vessel Astra in Stornoway. Given the limited time available, I will spare the House from having the e-mail read out, but it underlines the points made by Mallaig and North-West. I will of course make the contents of the e-mail available to the Minister if he would like to read it.
	Mallaig and North-West also made an important point about the continuing catch of dogfish. At one time, these fish were caught and landed, but because of the bureaucratic drop in quota they are now caught and discarded. If that issue could be looked at, it would avoid the wastage of good food being thrown over the side.
	Will the Minister also look at the tagging of nets? It is very annoying to fishermen when their boats are boarded and time is wasted while the inspectors check their nets; they might already have been checked in the very recent past. They could be easily be tagged to indicate that they had been looked at recently, so the lads can get back to their fishing.
	On a lateral issue, I would like the Minister to consider Filipino fishermen, who are a welcome addition on the west coast. They are liked, wanted and needed there. I have been in talks with the Filipino ambassador about this. I hope that the Minister can use his position in government to impress on the UK Border Agency just how important these fishermen are. The immigration Minister was helpful earlier in the year in ensuring an extension when there was a threat of having some of these fishermen removed from the country, but the immigration advisory council has delayed re-categorisation, so we still need a bridging period until this matter can be sorted out. I hope the Minister will ensure that if any fishermen return to the Faroes for the Christmas period, they will be allowed to come back. This issue also affects the processing sector; if these fishermen are not there to catch the fish, there will be no jobs in the processing sector, because the boats will tie up without them.
	I wish the Minister well at the talks-the annual horse-trading, as it is dubbed. Let me say that it might be easier for him if he had alongside him the ally of an independent Scotland, which might happen in the not too distant future. Finally, I would welcome the Minister to Stornoway at any time in the near future.

Alistair Carmichael: Like other Members, I am conscious of the time, so I shall restrict my remarks to a shopping list consisting of a few items. It is unfortunate that we have to do so, because there are bigger issues at stake which deserve the time of the House. It is nothing short of scandalous that we are not able to give them proper ventilation.
	As the Minister prepares for the European Union Norway talks, and subsequently the December Council, let me impress on him again the importance of preserving the mackerel allocation that we currently enjoy. The pelagic fleet is of supreme importance to communities such as Shetland which are highly dependent on fishing. The mackerel is probably the single most important element of the species available to those fishermen, and it should not be used as a pawn in some wider game with Norway. I have observed with some frustration the breakdown in international co-operation in that regard, which has seemed simply to disappear.
	The Minister will recall discussions last year about haddock. That remains a problem for fishermen on the west coast of Scotland, particularly on Orkney, and it seems that we are still far from a solution. However, the situation relating to the west coast quota will be greatly ameliorated if the Minister is able to preserve for the EU the 65 per cent. allocation of the total allowable catch of haddock around Rockall that we currently enjoy. Of course, that should never have been put beyond EU waters. It is nonsensical that haddock and other deep-water species are not party to EU waters, but that is an issue for another day.
	The fishermen whom I represent are particularly concerned about the effect of the 90 per cent. cod quota uptake. When fishermen hit the 90 per cent. allocation, they are required to start using separator gear. That means that they now cannot fish the last 10 per cent.-they are unable to fish up to the full quota. That may be a technical point, but I hope the Minister will accept that it is important and take it to the negotiating table.
	On the shopping list, may I draw to the attention of the House the importance of megrim? When I first started taking part in these debates some eight years ago, it was a species about which we hardly spoke at all, if at all. It is now one of the most important North sea species for the whitefish fleet. About 97 per cent. of the catch in the North sea comes to the United Kingdom, and about 80 per cent. of it comes to Scotland, and just about all of it is landed in Scotland. It has become enormously important, and it is deserving of a degree of attention this year-and, I am sure, in years to come-that it has not, perhaps, had in the past. May I also remind the Minister of the importance of monkfish? Brevitatis causa, I ask him to take on board my comments on that subject in previous fishing debates.
	We are now entering one of the most important phases of the coming years, as we look towards the reform of the common fisheries policy. As the Minister knows, I have a concern that while the Green Paper's analysis of the problem is welcome, it does not seem to accept the Commission's central role in creating that problem. In particular, I have a concern that the Commission seems to think that overcapacity is universal throughout the European Union, but it is not; the Scottish fleet, and in particular the Scottish whitefish fleet, have already experienced drastic decommissioning. We must be given the fullest possible credit for that as we go forward in the reform process.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am surprised that I have so much time in which to speak. I will rattle though my speech, and I apologise to the House if the opening Front-Bench contributions were too long. I, too, would have welcomed more time for the debate.
	I thank hon. Members for making thoughtful contributions, as they always do in such debates. We have covered CFP reform in all its myriad guises, and I welcome the common agreement in the House on the need for radical reform. I reiterate that the UK Government intend to continue to be right at the front end of that reform.
	I welcome the ideas that have been put forward. The common themes that we heard included the need to move away from micro-management-I agree that it is absolutely bizarre that Ministers should sit into the early hours making decisions on twine thickness-and the requirement for fisheries' involvement that is based on good evidence and good science. With the continued support of hon. Members, I hope that we will be successful on some of those matters.
	Many priorities have been suggested for the December Council, just as there were many asks during my earlier meeting with fisheries representatives from the whole of the UK. The EU-Norway negotiations will be important for mackerel, as well as wider issues. The negotiations will be far more difficult this year, but we will continue to engage and fight hard on behalf of the UK's interests, including the interests of the devolved Administrations.
	We have heard about the importance of the fleet to coastal communities and the divergent nature of our fleet in communities. We have also reflected on the importance of fisheries to processing and ancillary industries.
	I must stress the need to work together. There is a strong and effective working relationship among Ministers in the devolved Administrations and me, as the England and UK Fisheries Minister. When we work together and speak with one voice on CFP reform and other negotiations, the UK's position is stronger. It is important that we recognise that and ensure that we take that approach at all times, as we do.
	Good science and partnerships between science and fisheries are also important. As the weeks and months go by, I hope that we will have more ideas about how we can build on what is already being done well, including in the areas of hon. Members who have spoken. I talk to fishermen, and I sent some a video message in the past few days to congratulate them on the work that they were doing.
	We have heard about the importance of the wide remit for people on the sea, including recreational sea anglers. We have also heard about the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, special areas of conservation and special protection areas, and the way to engage wide interests on the ground, including with regard to fisheries. Discards have also been discussed-we have heard about many issues in the contributions of hon. Members, for which I thank them.
	We have largely sung from the same hymn sheet, but I cannot conclude without drawing attention to several discordant notes-I suspect that we are heading into the party political season-and I must correct some errors that were made. Unfortunately, although he made a good contribution, by and large, all the errors were in the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon).
	The hon. Gentleman was factually incorrect by referring to the environmentally responsible fishing pilot scheme as a stock assessment scheme. The ERF pilot was designed to provide evidence on the environmental and economic impact of segments of the onshore fleet-it was not a stock assessment scheme. It has provided hugely valuable data, and the findings will be published in due course. The scheme was originally meant to run from 6 August 2008 until 15 August 2009. In July, I made the decision to extend the scheme with the existing participants. Fishermen were warned in July, however, that the scheme could close at any time, and we closed it because we had obtained sufficient evidence. The data were being analysed on an ongoing basis, and we knew that the participation catch levels were higher than anticipated. In the interests of sustainable fisheries, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when a Minister recognises such a thing, he should stop a scheme.
	Let me correct the hon. Gentleman's point about quota. Under the Hague preference, we gave some quota to the under-10 metres and some to the over-10 metres. Under the decommissioning scheme, however, it all went to the under-10s. He seemed to mix up latent capacity and unused quota, which is important for producers' organisations and some of the over-10s. They distribute that, including through swaps to the under-10s, and it is important that there is such flexibility.
	The MMO has been fully engaged, and that process will be a success. The unions regularly come through my door. They will continue to do so, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would extend that invitation to them. I must congratulate him on summing up the Government's achievements-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the impact on Aylesbury vale of job losses recently announced by the Lloyds Group.
	The Lloyds Group is by far the biggest private sector employer in my constituency or in the wider Aylesbury vale district, which includes the parliamentary constituency of Mr. Speaker in Buckingham. Last week, Lloyds announced major job losses in Aylesbury. To some extent, this news was not surprising. Ever since Halifax-Bank of Scotland-HBOS-was hit by the credit crisis and forced to merge with Lloyds TSB, staff at the company, along with local business and political leaders, have had to live with uncertainty. It was always clear that that merger would lead to a review at some time of office locations and, on top of that, the impact of what is now the deepest and longest-lasting recession since the second world war has clearly reinforced the pressure on Lloyds to cut costs dramatically.
	Even so, last week's news was shocking. The Lloyds Group currently employs more than 1,000 people in Aylesbury. Between now and April 2011, 810 full-time equivalent jobs will go. Of those posts, 570 will shift as a consequence of a decision by Lloyds to concentrate its operations in Edinburgh and Bristol, and a further 240 will be lost as a result of the decision by Equitable Life to move its contract for back office work from Lloyds to a different contractor, a decision which the chief executive of Equitable Life explained to me was taken because of a very significant saving he will be able to make on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders by that change of contractor.
	When part-time workers are taken into account, the number of people directly affected will be larger than that figure of 810 full-time equivalent posts, and of course there is bound also to be a big knock-on effect on the wider local economy. Small and medium-sized businesses in Aylesbury which supply goods and services to Lloyds or which rely for sales on custom from Lloyds employees, most particularly during the lunchtime, are going to suffer badly.
	In addition, we know that the squeeze on public sector spending already planned for in the Government's published figures, and which will take place irrespective of which party forms the Government after the next election, will lead to additional job losses in the town. More than 30 per cent. of jobs in Aylesbury vale district are in the public sector, mostly with Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council and Stoke Mandeville hospital. The county council is already planning for about 500 job losses over the next couple of years, and the Buckinghamshire Hospitals Trust, which includes Stoke Mandeville, is implementing a programme of emergency savings to try to stay within its budget for the current financial year.
	Earlier today, representatives of the Buckinghamshire education and learning partnership, which works on behalf of local business and education and training institutions, told me that the combined effect of the job losses at Lloyds and the county council alone would push up the claimant count in Aylesbury by 1.5 per cent. I acknowledge up front that, in spite of that devastating news last week about job losses, the rate of unemployment in Aylesbury, though it has risen sharply during the last year, is below the national average. However, to those employees who are directly affected, and to their families, that will be small comfort. What makes the decision by Lloyds still more worrying is the impact that it will have on plans to increase employment in Aylesbury and, more widely, in the Aylesbury Vale district in response to the Government's plans for significant new housing in the area.
	In 2003, the Government identified Aylesbury vale as part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area. The district has to make provision for just over 27,000 new homes by 2026, and the great majority of that new development will have to be achieved through the expansion of the town of Aylesbury. Ever since the sustainable communities plan was published, Ministers have argued that they want growth involving new homes and new jobs. The current regional plan assumes that, in the case of Aylesbury vale, there should be roughly one new job for each new home built, so a total of 21,000 to 22,000 new jobs will somehow have to be provided.
	In previous Adjournment debates about growth plans for Aylesbury, I have said that even that provision is inadequate, given that in most households these days both the man and the woman work. What is surely clear, however, is that the Government's own declared objective of building a sustainable community is not compatible with development that turns Aylesbury increasingly into a dormitory town, especially given its relatively poor road infrastructure. We are already coping with significant traffic congestion problems, and in at least one location in the town an air quality management zone has been declared, because exhaust pollution breaches what are regarded as safe levels under European law.
	Aylesbury is already a net exporter of labour-to the tune of roughly 20,000 people a day who travel somewhere else in order to work. Historically, its commercial growth has been a lot slower than that which will be needed to deliver the more than 21,000 jobs that the Government envisage in their regional plan. In recent years, the take-up rate of office space in the town of Aylesbury has been less than 5,000 square metres a year, equating roughly to an additional 350 office jobs annually. Even if additional employment in other industrial sectors is added to that office jobs total, the delivery of 21,000 or more new jobs by 2026 implies for the next decade and a half an industrial and commercial premises take-up rate that is way beyond those levels. It is unrealistic to expect that job creation on anything approaching that scale can come from indigenous growth. Rather, we will have to attract inward investment from elsewhere in Britain and from overseas-and on a scale that defies previous experience.
	I wish to make a further point about the local economy. Aylesbury is often seen as linked either to the Thames valley and the M40/M4 corridor area of the south-east economy, or to Milton Keynes-or indeed to both. However, when we analyse the structure of Aylesbury's economy, we find that for a long time it has been less developed and less high-tech than either the Thames valley or Milton Keynes. It is also a town that has only a very small number of big private sector employers. That means that the loss of Lloyds as a major employer will be even more keenly felt.
	One of my fears, which is shared by many local business and political leaders, is that despite the good things we can all point to in what is happening in the Aylesbury economy, most notably the opening of the Peter Jones enterprise centre earlier this year, the impact of Lloyds very largely pulling out of the town will be to discourage other big employers from moving in.
	Locally, Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council, Aylesbury Vale Advantage- the local delivery vehicle, as the Minister knows-the Buckinghamshire economic and learning partnership and the South East England Development Agency are working together to try to mitigate the impact of the job losses announced last week and to provide help through the recession more generally. However, the Government's decision to designate Aylesbury as an area for significant new housing development means, in my view, that they have a clear responsibility to help.
	I want to list a number of ways in which I believe the Government might be able to offer assistance. I say straight away that I do not expect the Minister to be able to give a definite answer this evening, but I hope that he will undertake to review the situation, to study the menu that I offer him, and perhaps other options, and then to write to me in due course with his detailed response. I accept, too, that there is little spare cash floating around and that much Government money will already have been allocated to particular programmes. I will therefore try to suggest ways in which relatively small sums of money-perhaps tweaks to existing Government programmes-could be effected in ways that would make a significant difference locally.
	First, how do we help the 800-plus people who are going to lose their jobs, many of whom may have worked continuously for Lloyds or for its predecessor companies, HBOS and Equitable Life, for many years and have no recent experience of having to go out and search for work in the labour market? There are simply not sufficient local resources available to deal with the sheer scale of the job losses just announced. I would like the Government to allocate some of the funds already earmarked for the future jobs fund to give those people targeted and specific support to maximise their individual employment potential and make it possible for them to continue to contribute to the local and the national economy. Local organisations estimate that about £200,000 would be sufficient to provide the additional intensive support for those unemployed people that would be needed over the next 18 months.
	Secondly, there are growth area funds. The Government have already budgeted for GAF to help to finance the delivery of homes and jobs in designated growth areas, but so far Aylesbury vale has done badly out of that funding. Like all the other growth areas, Aylesbury vale had a sizeable proportion-just under £2 million-of funding that the Government had provisionally allocated for next year withdrawn by the Department for Communities and Local Government in order to fund the so-called kick-start scheme for housing development. That clawback by the Department represented a reduction of almost half Aylesbury's original GAF budget for the next year and nearly 20 per cent. of the funding allocated over the entire three-year period.
	As if to rub salt in the wound, Aylesbury vale then did not receive any of this funding back through the first round of the kick-start scheme, which was funded out of the money that the Government had decided to claw back. So Aylesbury lost out to other parts of the country, yet still faced and continues to face a major challenge of trying to deliver sustainable housing and employment growth in the current, very difficult economic climate. If all or even part of the GAF funding originally allocated to Aylesbury vale but then clawed back were now restored, those funds could be used to try to bring new jobs to the district.
	Thirdly, poor links to the trunk road network are a major disincentive for employers to locate in or close to the town. Local agencies are currently supporting a bid to the regional infrastructure fund to finance the proposed eastern link road, a development that is essential to Aylesbury's ability to overcome the shortcomings in its transport infrastructure and attract new business. If built, the link not only ought to ease congestion within the town, an important objective in itself, but would unlock greater development potential and encourage more business investment in the Aylesbury area.
	Fourthly, I would like the Government to accept the application made by Aylesbury Vale district council to be one of the pilot areas for the tax increment finance scheme. If they want to demonstrate that they have joined up their programmes to support and assist the growth areas that Ministers themselves have chosen to designate, they should choose Aylesbury as one of the successful pilots.
	Fifthly, the Government have just announced plans to relocate many thousands of civil service jobs to places outside London. Although I believe that the priority in my constituency should be to strengthen private sector investment in Aylesbury, especially given the imbalances in the local economy that I have described, I hope that Ministers will consider the town as a potential destination for any departmental relocations.
	Sixthly and finally, inward investment is essential if Aylesbury is to come near to providing the number of jobs necessary to support the residential development that the Government want. Access to key Government bodies such as UK Trade & Investment, and a readiness by central Government Departments to promote Aylesbury vale and its key commercial development sites, would strengthen the efforts already being made at local and regional level to identify and attract potential new investors.
	I hope that the Minister will understand the gravity of the Lloyds announcement, its impact on the economy of my constituency and the seriousness with which the matter is regarded across party political boundaries in Aylesbury. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the proposals that I and a number of local agencies are making.

Ian Lucas: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing this debate on an important subject and on the way in which he has acted as a persuasive advocate on behalf of his community. Many of us in Parliament have of course experienced job losses in our communities during the past 18 months to two years, and they are always profoundly to be regretted. They have a profound effect on people's lives, and each individual is severely affected. He put across very strongly how his community has been affected, and I thank him both for the tone in which he approached the matter and the constructive way in which he made proposals to help his constituency at this difficult time. I sympathise profoundly with his constituents, and I want to do all I can to assist. I shall certainly examine his proposals closely.
	The financial sector has of course been hit very hard indeed by the recession. Many people in it have lost their jobs, and others are still very concerned about their future. The job losses in Aylesbury are a reminder that, for many employees, these are very difficult times.
	The Government have taken action in the past 18 months to avert the collapse of the banks. We wanted to ensure a strong, vibrant financial services sector in the future, with stronger and safer banks that are better able to support the recovery. As the hon. Gentleman said, Lloyds Banking Group, along with other banks, has benefited from a range of taxpayer support. In particular, the Government have a 43 per cent. stake in the bank, resulting from the sector-wide intervention in October 2008. That percentage will be maintained by the Government's subscribing to the Lloyds rights-issue later this month.
	Government support for the banks is not unconditional. We have secured various commitments from Lloyds, and from the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has also been a major beneficiary of taxpayer support. They include commitments to increasing lending to businesses and home owners, to ensuring that customer charges are fair and transparent, and to deferring bonus payments. Of course, I recognise that that action is small consolation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He described his constituency as he alone knows it, and he described the importance of the financial sector to his constituency well. It was helpful to listen to his exposition.
	We are of course, doing all we can to assist those who are losing their jobs in the major job loss in the Aylesbury area. It is worth pointing out that the timing of the redundancies will be phased; they will take place from mid-2010 until the end of 2011. In November 2008, we expanded the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service to offer support to every employer proposing 20 or more redundancies. That service can help employers to support their work force in difficult circumstances. Nationally, more than 3,000 employers have used the service since last November, and we have invested £12 million in the service for 2009-10.
	In the south-east, the rapid response service has been extended to cover every person facing redundancy, entitling them to extra support and, in some cases, funding. Jobcentre Plus has been working with the South East England Development Agency, the Learning and Skills Council, the sector skills councils, the Government office and other partners to develop a recovery plan for major redundancies.
	In Aylesbury, I know that SEEDA has already convened a local taskforce to provide assistance and advice for those affected by the Lloyds Banking Group redundancies. SEEDA is working in partnership with Aylesbury Vale district council, Buckinghamshire county council, the local economic and learning partnership, Business Link, the Learning and Skills Council, Lloyds Banking Group itself and, of course, Jobcentre Plus. That taskforce brings together all those national and local agencies, and will put in place a co-ordinated package of support, tailored to suit the needs of the people affected. It will include workshops for all employees, looking at curriculum vitae writing and interview skills, skills checks and job search advice. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am conscious that many of the people affected will not have had to look for a job for a very long time. What is happening will be a profound shock to them, and it is important that they have assistance of the type I have mentioned in finding work.
	We will also provide support for those who may be interested in becoming self-employed, as ever more people are nowadays. As a result of changes in the local economy, areas such as Aylesbury will of course benefit from innovation among their populations. Many of the people who lose their jobs in the redundancy will have advanced skills and will have much to offer, once they have the confidence and the assistance offered by those with specialist advice who will be available to help. The taskforce will also be organising recruitment days with potential employers that offer jobs in similar sectors, as well as offering job-matching with existing companies and working to try to bring new companies to the town.
	Fortunately, Aylesbury has a relatively low level of unemployment-even in the context of Buckinghamshire, but certainly in the context of the national average. That is, I stress again, small consolation to those individuals concerned. I understand that SEEDA has been keeping the hon. Gentleman informed on progress. I am sure that he will keep a close eye on the development agency and on all the other organisations that I mentioned, to ensure that they are providing the type and level of support to which his constituents are entitled.
	Partners in the south-east have a good and strong history of responding quickly and positively to large-scale redundancies. Similar local taskforces were set up to support those affected by job losses at Ford in Southampton and at Vestas on the Isle of Wight. In the first six weeks following the Vestas redundancies, 84 people found new jobs, 94 were in training and 157 had been helped through the action fund. I am sure that the people in Aylesbury will also benefit from the experience that has been built up. Unfortunately, we have had far more job losses than any of us would have liked to have seen over the past two years.
	The withdrawal on such a scale of a flagship company will of course have a significant impact on Aylesbury, as it would on any community, but I am confident that there will be new opportunities in the area. SEEDA is working with the district and county councils to explore and promote opportunities for continued economic growth in the area. That will include providing assistance for local businesses with growth potential and securing new inward investment.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the growth programme in Aylesbury. The plans for housing growth in this and other locations are, of course, long-term. They reflect existing needs for new housing as well as housing needs that will arise in the future, primarily as a result of demographic change. It is all the more important that we plan for the future at these most difficult times, when a significant job loss situation has been created, and that we provide affordable housing in the Aylesbury and Buckinghamshire area. The prosperity and future of the area will depend on growth within the local community and within industry, because growth will provide employment and opportunities and will enable the community to develop in a sustainable way.
	I was very taken by the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and specifically by his constructive suggestions. He kindly indicated at the outset that he did not expect me to give him too many early Christmas boxes at this stage, but I will certainly consider the points he made. Some of them are not my Department's responsibility, but I will certainly relay them to my colleagues and ensure that they consider closely what specific help we can give to the Aylesbury area, in addition to the general help I have already described.
	The situation is, of course, very difficult. I am sure that it is unusual for this scale of job losses to affect the community in the Aylesbury area. I am sure that it is a resilient community and it is well represented by the hon. Gentleman. I will consider closely the constructive proposals that he has made and I will write to him shortly on those matters. I thank him for bringing to the House's attention the position in Aylesbury and I look forward to working with him to try to assist his constituents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.